Supreme Court Directs Payment of Salaries to Excess-Appointed Stenographers and Sets Aside High Court Orders

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal challenging the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a petition seeking payment of salaries to stenographers who were later found to have been appointed in excess of advertised vacancies.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Single Judge, and directed payment of salary for the period during which the appellant and similarly situated persons had actually worked. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised in a "hyper-technical" manner when material facts were admitted. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Much before the judgment of the learned Single Judge was delivered on 23rd May 2018, this Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. and Another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others has held that even in case of disputed questions of fact, the High Court would be justified in entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that even in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, where such disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The Court further directed that "The respondents are directed to pay the salary of the appellant herein and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court. The same shall be paid within a period of three months from today, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries ought to have been paid to them."

Background The appellant had applied to an advertisement issued by the District Court, Saharanpur, and was appointed as a stenographer along with six others on 16 April 2002 to work in Fast Track Courts, although only three regular vacancies were advertised. When the Fast Track Courts ceased to function, the District Judge issued show cause notices and terminated the services of the appellant and three others on 28 February 2005. The appellant contested termination by writ petition, which the Single Judge dismissed on 17 May 2012; a subsequent intra-court appeal was also dismissed. This Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition in September 2012 but granted liberty to seek salary through an appropriate civil action.

Thereafter, the appellant filed representations before the District Judge for payment of salary for the period worked; those representations were rejected. A later writ petition (No.26698 of 2015) seeking salary was dismissed by the Single Judge on 23 May 2018; an intra-court appeal (Special Appeal Defective No.456 of 2019) was dismissed by the Division Bench on 16 May 2019. The present Special Leave Petition (arising out of SLP(C) No.5505 of 2020) followed and notice issued by this Court on 28 February 2020.

The Supreme Court held that the undisputed fact that the appellant had worked for eight years warranted relief and that the High Court erred in adopting a hyper-technical view by confining "civil action" strictly to proceedings before a Civil Court. The Court relied on precedent beginning with ABL International and subsequent decisions and found both High Court judgments unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, the respondents were directed to pay salaries with 6% interest within three months and to pay costs of Rs.1 lakh to the appellant, also within three months. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 379 Case Title: Yogesh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Vishal Meghwal, Advocate (for Respondent No.2, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)